Why I vote for candidates who “can’t win”

I get no material benefit out of it. I do not determine the results of any election. I have never voted in an election for public office that was decided by one vote, or even 100 votes.

By voting, I do two things. I do my duty as a citizen of a democratic country. I express my belief in the direction of my community by my choice of candidate.

That being so, why should I limit my choice in the general election to just the two largest parties? And why should I limit my choice in the primary election to the candidate most likely to win the general election?

People who limit their choice in this way are basing their vote on how they think other people will vote. To the extent they do this, they allow these other people to determine their choice.

By voting my conviction, I make myself one of these other people. I am one of the people whose views they have to take into account when they make their decision.

I of course do not criticize anybody who votes for a front-runner or a major-party nominee based on a sincere belief that this person is the best choice, and that the nation is basically on the right path. I used to think that way myself.

I’ve become disenchanted with the two major political parties because it seems to me they are now more alike than they are different.

That is not to say that they are entirely alike, especially on questions that do not affect the structure of economic and political power.

But there is a bipartisan consensus among candidates for both parties of acceptance of perpetual war, persecution of dissidents, economic decline and immunity from prosecution by high-level criminals that, to me, is more significant than any differences.

I refuse to support militarism, authoritarianism and financial oligarchy by voting for candidates who accept them as normal.